Female Namibian runners change events due to too high testosterone

[KevinBaconsJeans]

Just spotted this on my newsfeed and very confused. I've seen on another post that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone. So does that mean that this BBC article is lying by omission about the sex of the runners to create a story that isn't true?

It talks about two Namibian runners who have had to switch to different events because they have high T...

www.bbc.com/sport/africa/58029941

Extract:
Her initial excitement at an Olympic qualification however was crushed when she was informed by World Athletics that she would not be able to compete in the 400m event at the Games due to high levels of testosterone.

"In the beginning I was very down, you can't come and tell me now I am not a woman. That is really frustrating and gets me on my nerves but there's nothing we can do about it at the moment," she told BBC Sport Africa...

"It is really unfair because you cannot expect everyone to be the same, everyone to have the same abilities, we are born with different abilities, we can't be the same it doesn't make sense."

Masilingi was only informed in July by World Athletics that her testosterone levels were beyond the allowed limit for female athletes wanting to run in distances from 400m to one mile, unless they medically lower their testosterone for a period of at least six months

I think I’ve read that the Namibian has the same agent as Semanya.

@Clymene

I do not believe that they didn't know. That's the story that was spun about Semenya too.

But Semenya wore boys school uniform and wasn't allowed to do PE with girls at school.

It is a racist trope that these athletes come from remote villages where they don't understand that that not starting periods and instead going through male puberty where their genitalia changes to reassemble a more typically male presentation is perfectly normal.

I'm not anyone believes that these world beating athletes, at the cutting edge of modern training, live in mud huts or something.

It makes me uncomfortable that predominantly white people seem to be making the rules for a condition that is seemingly more common in (and probably better understood by) black athletes. I can't help but feel the decision might swing the other way if we were talking about a blonde haired, blue eyed, cheerleader type.

@nolongersurprised

God I am confused. Can someone explain the rules and the conditions of the athletes in simple terms?

Female Athlete is identified as possibly having high testosterone.

Athlete’s testosterone is checked - if high and athlete is XX (and not doping) such as with an XX DSD like Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia athlete continues with no need to change anything.

If an XY then DSD testing to determine which type and whether athlete is androgen sensitive. If androgen sensitive then testosterone levels need to be lowered to compete in some selected races. The high testosterone comes from what is often internal testes

It’s daft but only some races in athletes could “prove” that male puberty and testosterone were beneficial, so male DSD athletes competing as women can run with male levels of testosterone.

Thank you!

I know this is controversial, but I would also exclude CAIS from female competition. I know that phenotypically they are different. However, there is evidence CAIS athletes are over represented at Olympic level compared to the population occurrence by a factor of 20, there are likely other skeletal benefits of XY chromosomes, they never have to deal with a period, in training or competition, nor deal with the fluctuations of progesterone and oestrogen which not only affect performance, but alter injury rates.

It would never fly, because public opinion would allow a stunning feminine looking athlete to be excluded, plus there isn’t enough data to make a valid argument, but it’s what I think. Would make it easier too: Y chromosome, no women’s competition, end of story.

It makes you uncomfortable that predominantly black men are beating white women in international athletics? Okay then, that's your issue @ViceLikeBlip

Could it be that they are XX but with an SRY gene that has ended up as part of the X chromosome, which can apparently sometimes happen? Then both statements could be true.

Would an XY person with CAIS even be flagged as needed chromosomal testing? It's not done as a regular thing for athletes, is it? In fact I'm not sure what the symptoms (treatment?) are that would mean it was diagnosed, until absence of periods, and that can certainly be common amongst high-level athletes anyway.

If they don't have a female reproductive system then they don't have a female phenotype. Phenotype is about the expression of genes not how someone looks with long hair, heels and makeup.

People with CAIS look female regardless of whether they have long hair or heels or makeup or even wear clothes. They don’t go through male puberty and they don’t have a functioning male reproductive system.

I don’t see what practical purpose is served by insisting they be classified as male in all aspects.

I know this is controversial, but I would also exclude CAIS from female competition. I know that phenotypically they are different.

I see what you mean, but the advantage level appears to be not insurmountable. It's not bigger than, say, the advantage East African athletes have in the marathon. They're overrepresented, but not unbeatable.

You'd have as strong an argument for excluding them for fairness as CAIS XY women. Main difference is that there is a higher classification you could shunt the CAIS XY up to that you can argue they belong to.

However, that would be spectacularly unfair to the CAIS XY. Unlike the 5-ARD XY, they do not have male bodies. Semenya and the like do not appear to have a disadvantage compared to other males, they can have fair competition there. CAIS XY cannot fairly compete anywhere if they cannot compete as female.

Swyer syndrome is incredibly rare, much rarer than XY DSDs with virilisation.

An athlete with CAIS would have high testosterone levels on drug testing. And lack of periods isn’t that ubiquitous in elite athletes. I read one study that had it at 25%.

It makes me uncomfortable that predominantly white people seem to be making the rules for a condition that is seemingly more common in (and probably better understood by) black athletes. I can't help but feel the decision might swing the other way if we were talking about a blonde haired, blue eyed, cheerleader type

But you don't feel uncomfortable that men are making rules about which men can run in women's races?

@SCMocha

Could it be that they are XX but with an SRY gene that has ended up as part of the X chromosome, which can apparently sometimes happen? Then both statements could be true.

Would an XY person with CAIS even be flagged as needed chromosomal testing? It's not done as a regular thing for athletes, is it? In fact I'm not sure what the symptoms (treatment?) are that would mean it was diagnosed, until absence of periods, and that can certainly be common amongst high-level athletes anyway.

No. The regulations only apply to XY athletes

Reposting from @nolongersurprised:

'1. Which athletes fall under the DSD regulations?

The DSD regulations only apply to individuals who are:

legally female (or intersex) and
who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have:
male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX)
testes not ovaries
circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and
the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’)*

From the article - if you are a “female” DSD athlete you only need to lower testosterone if you are XY (male) and responsive to testosterone'

And if I sound angry I am. I am a keen follower of athletics and it's been heartbreaking seeing women's dreams smashed by cheating. And again, they're not being prevented from competing - they just have to lower their testosterone.

Would make it easier too: Y chromosome, no women’s competition, end of story.

That used to be the system and people with a Y chromosome were automatically excluded from women’s competition.

I think it depends how much of an advantage is given. If not much, how much does it matter?

On the other hand advantages conferred by male puberty are clear.

You'd have as strong an argument for excluding them for fairness as CAIS XY women. Main difference is that there is a higher classification you could shunt the CAIS XY up to that you can argue they belong to

Which is why I know it won’t ever eventuate. I mean look at what we have now: athletes we know are male, but can only be excluded from 400m to 1500m because the data isn’t available to show advantage at other distances .

@Tibtom

In this case another part of the system has broken down, not letting the genes do their job. You've ended up with a female phenotype, despite being genetically male. A nearly-typical female-type body, but without the female reproductive system.

If they don't have a female reproductive system then they don't have a female phenotype. Phenotype is about the expression of genes not how someone looks with long hair, heels and makeup. Reproductive system is a fubdamental part of phenotype, as is blood group and other things we can't see as someone walks down the street.

I'm not sure this is what is being said. If someone has what appears to be female genitals, but no actual internal female reproductive system, and has a body that looks near identical to someone with XX, with no male reproductive system to confer advantage, then the only way to tell they are XY is a chromosome test. I have a friend who has no internal reproductive system. It was a source of great sadness to her, and she and her husband have adopted children. She doesn't wear make up and heels, she's actually a very conservative Christian who wouldn't do that particular look, but she is still very obviously a woman. I don't pry as to the ins and outs, and my field is language, not the material sciences, but I think all this shows is that hard cases make bad law.

Someone is lying here, and Cui Bono suggests it's the Namibian authorities. That being said, this isn't a hard case where the chromosomes are XY but they make no material difference to the person. The athletes have an obvious advantage. So it's a very straightfoward, no. Well, it should be.

@Clymene

It makes you uncomfortable that predominantly black men are beating white women in international athletics? Okay then, that's your issue *@ViceLikeBlip*

What? I'm confused.

Would an XY person with CAIS even be flagged as needed chromosomal testing? It's not done as a regular thing for athletes, is it?

It used to be - cheek swabs - and CAIS athletes being flagged by it and being stopped was one of the things that drew the practice into question. CAIS athletes often wouldn't know they were XY. They were likely the predominant XY DSD at the time, due to reaching elite level undetected.

But when it was stopped, then all the authorities realised that all the XY DSDs that were obviously male - the 5-ARDs like Semenya - could not get in. So suddenly women's athletics is full of if not clearly male, at least suspiciously male bodies. Previously countries would have likely suspected and checked 5-ARD themselves before trying to train them up. No point training if they'd fail the XY test.

CAIS XY cannot fairly compete anywhere if they cannot compete as female

Why can't they compete with males? It is ridiculous to say that because a gene makes a man less athletic than other men it is only fair for them to compete with women.

I wonder what they would do, though, with an XX person with a mislocated SRY gene, which means effectively having all the important bits of a Y chromosome, without it being called that. It would seem equally unfair to have such a person competing in women's competition.

I wonder if the rules would actually have more subtle specifications for very edge cases like that, where it simply doesn't come down to XX vs XY. Someone who has an SRY gene, regardless of chromosome, will effectively develop as male, surely?

@ViceLikeBlip

I was really surprised to read on here the other day that the testosterone levels only apply to XY athletes. But I've not been able to find any mention of that anywhere else online. And now apparently the Namibian Olympic committee are saying that these women are in fact XX.

I'm torn. I have so much empathy for women who have been told their whole lives that they are women, and they've trained (and sacrificed) accordingly, and then they discover they are in fact male with unusual /ambiguous genitals. And now the whole world (and me!) is discussing their genitals, which I also feel awful about. And if I suddenly discovered I had an internal testicle and suddenly a bunch of strangers were telling me I wasn't a woman, I would be distraught (I understand that it's different if you're competing at the Olympics! But several people have asserted that these athletes are objectively "male", and that doesn't sit well with me. It's completely different from someone who is unambiguously male bodied suddenly deciding they "feel" female)

But I also understand that it's not fair on other athletes, especially if we're reaching a point where coaches are deliberately searching out these people.

Very much this

One of the good things about the increased popularity and funding behind women’s sport is the increasing research into Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, amenorrhoea, effects of oestrogen, progesterone etc. It’s mad there isn’t enough data at the moment, given 51% of athletes are affected.

@Zeev

I'm torn. I have so much empathy for women who have been told their whole lives that they are women, and they've trained (and sacrificed) accordingly, and then they discover they are in fact male with unusual /ambiguous genitals.

I don't think there's much reason to think that this was the case with these athletes.

@Zeev Do you honestly believe that any country is going to unwittingly put forward an Olympic athlete who has not been medically examined, weighed, scanned, measured and tested from head to toe? Who has not provided countless blood samples for testing? Who has not been minutely questioned about their diet, their sleep, their digestion, their sexual health?

Let’s be honest here, some countries are actively looking for medals for reasons that include international prestige and the personal edification of their heads of government/ sports ministers/ coaches. They are seeking out athletes who provide the cheapest training/ medal ratio possible. They are not interested in the mental health of their athletes, they are not interested in their physical well-being, or the derision they encounter at meets with other athletes.

I don’t know how many athletes being promoted like this collude in the deception, I suspect many , perhaps most, are well aware that they are being exploited and accept it for the material rewards athletic success can provide. I would hate to think that others are kept ignorant about their medical condition until they find themselves on the most public athletic starting line in the world, ie the Olympics.

It makes me uncomfortable that predominantly white people seem to be making the rules for a condition that is seemingly more common in (and probably better understood by) black athletes.

It’s not better understood if in general people are denying knowledge of the condition.

You also seem to have a rather limited idea both of the range of body types that is normal in non white athletes and who is taking part in these competitions.

You give the impression that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Why can't they compete with males?

Because reproductive function doesn't determine success in sport. It's the body.

We classify sports by sex, but it's a proxy for the two body types. Male-bodied people and female-bodied people are what we care about. Not the genitals, the genes, the gametes. The body type.

Those XY CAIS individuals have female-type bodies. Slightly non-standard - enough to be statistically different from the female norm, but a squillion miles away fom male bodies. Asking them to compete with men is as daft as asking any woman to compete with men. Maybe they're 0.1% closer, but that still leaves 14.9% gap.

And it's not viable to make a whole new classification for that small population.

Those individuals are not like Semenya, who I agree has a nearly-totally-standard male body, and hence should compete with other male-bodied individuals.

Or maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick?

I wonder if the rules would actually have more subtle specifications for very edge cases like that, where it simply doesn't come down to XX vs XY.

There actually is a specific list of (6?) DSDs it applies to, rather than it being written like the "classification" outline given in the list - that's a restatement of the commonality of those for people who don't know their DSDs by name! So PAIS, 5-ARD and some others. I don't know if that list includes SRY relocations.

There must be some rare DSDs not on the list that they could now be scouting for.